Loading ...
Since I’ve only been a Catholic for a short time, I often don’t know when I’ve come across something which would strike others as new and interesting. I think many would agree with me, though, that there is a whole lot more in the Summa Theologica than at first one would guess.
While watching a little movie last night, I heard the following section of the Summa referenced, and I was impressed by what I read. So if this material is old hat for our visitors, I apologize, but it is certainly new for the Catholic students at Cornell University.
Whether dispensing of the Blessed Sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Objection 1. It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ’s blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ’s blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus: “Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord’s blood.” Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ’s body does not belong to priests only.
Objection 2. Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the Lord’s body.
Objection 3. Further, Dionysius says that this sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs, not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to the priest.
On the contrary, It is written: “It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord’s body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick. The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick.”
I answer that, The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons.
First, because . . . he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.
Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people.
Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.
Reply to Objection 1. The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter’s duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ’s blood is contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as Christ’s body is touched. Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.
Reply to Objection 2. For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3. As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest’s “power of enlightening”, inasmuch as he dispenses the blood, so the priest shares in the “perfective dispensing” of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to others, are reserved to the bishop.
Now isn’t this material most interesting? I had never read that article before and it only adds to my indignation at the Novus Ordo regime. I’d like to think that if more people knew about this sort of thing, they would begin to question the use of extra-ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
Since I’m already speaking here about the reverence due the Blessed Sacrament, this seems a good place to relate some more details from the biography of the Cure d’Ars which I’m reading. I cannot recommend the book enough; the material is too wonderful. I am reminded of what I once read about St. Philip Neri: to know him, to know his life, is to love him. But isn’t this true for any saint whom we take the time to consider? I read of St. Alphonus, and I love him, I read of the St. Jean Marie Baptiste, and I love him.
So these passages are taken from the chapter about an average day in his life, days which began around 1AM, when he rose to hear confessions, and ended when he retired to his bedroom around 8 or 9PM where, very often unable to sleep, he would gaze at the “pictures on his wall”, pictures of the saints. These depictions, he said, seemed to mock him: “What are you doing lying abed? During our lives, we watched and prayed during the nights.” (Yeah, this guy was not in the ordinary run of men.) I quote:
“He never deemed the vestments too magnificent. He would have wished the chalice to be of solid gold, because ‘even the best that he had did not seem worthy to contain the blood of Jesus Christ.’ . . . .
“As he stood at the altar [saying Mass, many] feelings came crowding in upon him, and, strangely enough, they were not unmixed with fear and even temptations to despair. One morning the thought of hell so harassed him with a fear of losing God forever that he groaned within himself: ‘At least leave me the Blessed Virgin!’
“One Christmas, during the midnight Mass, a fairly long hymn was sung after the consecration. According to the rubrics of the rite of Lyons, M. le Cure, who was celebrant, had, at a certain moment after the consecration, to hold the sacred Host over the chalice until the Pater Noster. ‘I saw him look at the Host now with tears, now all smiles,’ says Frere Athanase. ‘He seemed to speak to it; then the tears began again, to be followed by yet more smiles. On our return to the sacristy after Mass, we apologized for having kept him waiting. “Oh, I did not find the time long,” was his reply.
” ‘But, Monsieur le Cure, what were you doing whilst you held the sacred Host? You seemed to be greatly moved.’
” ‘So I was. A curious idea came into my head. I said to our Lord: ‘If I knew that I should have the misfortune to be deprived of seeing you throughout all eternity, now that I hold you in my hand, I should never let you go.’ ”
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
I hope that on the way to their eternal… umm… reward, our faithless prelates get slapped by Thomas and every other Saint, Doctor, and Father whose teachings they have personally undermined.
Yeah, a good back-handed slap, with gloves or without, would be fitting, wouldn’t it? No more and no less. God will sort out the rest.
Just a question about the third point in Thomas’ answer. Doesn’t the host touch something unconsecrated when it is put onto the tongue of a sinner (even supposing that that person is not in mortal sin)?
What about the Blessed Sacrament touching the hands of an extrodinary minister when the priest should be dispensing the sacrament?
How can good priests allow this? At Cornell it is obvious: recruiting for left wing political activities at church trumps teaching about the sacraments, but what are the other churchs’ excuses? This is a common abuse.
Of course it touches the layman’s tongue. But this is what has been commanded by the Lord, right?, that we eat of His body and blood. We have not been commanded to handle the Blessed Sacrament. So if we thought that we might handle the Blessed Sacrament, Thomas explains why we should not.
Here is the Latin of the article in question for those who would like to see it. I looked to it for some illumination about Clara’s question, but there was nothing in the language which suggested to me a reply other than the one I’ve already proffered.
Perhaps he has a physiological view whereby when we eat things, when they are in the mouth, we are not touching them. I don’t know.
Anyway, his points make sense, without resolving those questions, I think.
One question, is extraordinarily long masses an acceptable excuse to solicit extra-ordinary ministers?
No, certainly not. Because there is no reason that an extraordinary number of people have to receive the Eucharist at one of those gigantic Masses. Just think of all the abuses that must happen at those Masses! Hosts falling on the ground, no way of knowing who has been to confession, who has been properly catechized, who has made a proper preparation, etc. Those Masses are simply a disaster.
Wouldn’t it be better for all there concerned to receive the Eucharist at a time of proper recollection and calm? Then, at the big Masses, with the pope, or whomever, they can focus on worthily uniting their intentions with the Supreme Pontiff offering the Mass, which is the most important element of the Mass, namely the sacrifice offered.
“Just think of all the abuses that must happen at those Masses! Hosts falling on the ground, no way of knowing who has been to confession, who has been properly catechized, who has made a proper preparation, etc. Those Masses are simply a disaster.”
I’m not sure this actually addresses the question asked. One cannot know who has been catechized unless one knows that person or is prepared to give a pop quiz at the Communion rail. One can never, ever know if a person approaches with a clean conscience. These abuses can happen just as well at a small Mass as at a large one. As for the fallen Hosts, I don’t see how this is an inevitable result of large Masses. That there have been notorious examples of this occurring doesn’t seem to establish a necessary connection. In the end Our Lord entrusts Himself to us, for our salvation or damnation, and unless we are dressed immodestly, or behaving oddly, or are notorious unrepentent sinners, the priest will give us Holy Communion.
Also, it is true that we need not receive Holy Communion at every Mass, but I don’t see how that relates the fact that “the sacrifice offered” is the most important element of the Mass. It seems problematic to oppose reception of the sacrament with uniting one’s intentions with that of the priest — reception of the sacrament is the best way of participating in the Sacrifice. Perhaps I am misreading your point of view; if so, please correct me.
The real problem is that those that would accept St. Thomas and do not see any problem with the Novus Ordo Missæ would be the ones who would reject the extraordinary minister and communion in the hand … but the ones that accept the latter would reject St. Thomas calling it “not infallible” or claiming that was how the early Church did things.
It’s a real Catch-22.
As regards the extraordinary long time … If you have a Mass like in St. Peter’s or on a pilgrimage, then have many priests, no layman distribute communion. At a parish though, one priest, giving communion on the toungue to 1000 people at a Mass takes about 20 mins tops … that is not extraordinary in my book.
Hard to set the bound on “extraordinary” when such a precious, powerful thing is at stake.
I would add also that distributing the Blessed Sacrament will surely be quicker when there are altar rails.
But here’s something else that I keep thinking about, as a sort of follow up on my question earlier in this thread concerning the Blessed Sacrament touching the unconsecrated tongue of sinners. As Iosephus points out, we are commanded to receive the Body of Christ, so it must be all right for us to do so (under proper conditions, of course, but those conditions do not seem to include being consecrated.) But if we can agree that God sometimes condescends to be eaten by sinners, why should it be so unbelievable that he should condescend to be touched by unconsecrated laypeople as extraordinary ministers?
I understand the reasons for thinking that the casual use of extraordinary ministers is wrong, and I don’t actually agree with it. But my central thought is this: it is often the case that the line between a sacrilege and an honor is very thin, and marked (at least to our limited understanding) only by what is licit. For a non-Catholic to receive the Blessed Sacrament is a deep sacrilege, regardless of the goodness of their intentions. But when a Catholic receives under the specified conditions, it is a pious act and an honor. Of course, part of the difference is that the Catholic is in a state of grace and is therefore a cleaner vessel for our Lord to enter. But he is not really worthy either; it is only God’s great generosity that can make the act salvific rather than damning, and it is only because God has actually ordered us to the communion rail that we can dare to go. It would be shockingly presumptuous to demand such a favor for ourselves. Similarly, to stand in front of a congregation in the person of Christ, for such a solemn purpose as saying a Mass, would be the worst kind of blasphemy if, for example, I were to do it. Actual priests are not necessarily better people than me, and in no case are they really worthy of the dignity of their great office, but because God has called them to it, we believe that Masses can be said by imperfect human beings, for their own good and the good of all the Church.
Understand that I’m not trying to imply that there isn’t a metaphysical difference between the Catholic and the non-Catholic, or the priest and the layman, which would explain why it really is sacrilegious for one person to do something that is allowed and even commanded of another. But these metaphysical differences come about through God’s action and according to his will, and we have no real way to know about them except through attention to the dictates of the Church regarding what is and is not allowed. And with this in mind, the proper attitude seems to be that to approach the Lord without an invitation is a sacrilege, but to approach with one is an honor and a blessing.
Well, and so, this is what confuses me. For reasons that I explained at some length in a different thread, I stick closely to the practices that I was taught in my catechesis when it comes to receiving communion. At the same time, it does seem that extraordinary ministers are allowed to some degree by the Vatican (though perhaps the license has been stretched rather far) and certainly communion in the hand has been sanctioned by the Vatican. I do not wish to participate in these practices, and they do not seem to have had the effect of increasing reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, but nonetheless, I can’t quite find a way out of my own logic: insofar as we are being invited to come closer to our Lord, shouldn’t we be eager to respond?
St Thomas was perhaps the greatest theologian of the Church but he is not the Magisterium. If the Magisterium decides that Extraordinary Ministers can distribute Holy Communion then to paraphrase St Augustine ‘Rome has spoken the case is closed.’
Having said that may I say that I am personally not comfortable with the distribution of Holy Communion either to the sick or to a congregation by the laity.
I agree that if Rome says the extraordinary ministers are permitted, then Rome has spoken. The problem is that they are not so extraordinary now a days. I’d prefer to wait an extra ten minutes before receiving communion because the line is so long than to have half a dozen extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. They are frequently used unecessarily. Often I’ve been at Mass where the priest has ‘finished’ distributing the Eucharist and sat down while the extraordinary eucharistic ministers will still distributing. Worse than all of this of course though is when the priest invites communicants to receive the Precious Blood from the Sacred Chalice either sitting on the altar or a table without either a priest or an extraordinary minister. This is clearly a violation of article 94. of Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Sinners aren’t supposed to receive the Blessed Sacrament, if you have sinned you are meant to partake of the Sacrament of Penance first, those who receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily do so to their own damnation, just as did Judas.
Serious sin only… we’re not Jansenists.
all sins are serious
In this context, serious means “grave”. Not all sins are “grave”…
“Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.”
See also “Sin” in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. Here’s an excerpt:
“Gravity
“While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John 19:11; Matthew 11:22; Luke 6), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. ii, a. 9; I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 5). “